fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Ok I promised myself I wouldn’t post in this thread anymore but I can’t just let this post go unchallenged. Let’s disect some claims now shall we.
The reason people support her, while maybe influenced some by that, it’s mostly a side point. However, I should make the case as to why that matters. It matters because it shows political courage. Now, for those who don’t remember, at the time Tulsi was actually well-liked by the establishment and iirc she was planned on being the next presidential candidate after Hillary. However, she stepped down as DNC vice chair in order to endorse Bernie, and she was the first big name to do so. In doing so, she bucked party orthodoxy and showed that she would fight for what she thought was right, even if it hurts her politically, and make no mistake, this did. Now of course, this by itself isn’t a reason to support someone. But this is really where she showed her true colors and how she’ll stand up for what’s right, which is what she’s been doing with her campaign.
That is extremely disingenuous. She had one quote from 2016, I believe, where she said she was a dove on interventionist wars and a hawk on terror and everyone pounced on the one like. She has since gone on to clarify what she means by that, which a lot of people seem to ignore. Firstly, she has very much so spoken out against how the “war on terror” has been implemented, basically as an excuse to do a bunch of terrible wars. Her idea of a war on terror, from her own mouth, is to basically pull our of places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other places we’re fighting awful regime-change wars, support groups fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda on the ground like the Kurds as an example, and end any support we give to terrorists, which is a lot. That sounds like a great, sensible foreign policy to me, and taking one quote of hers out of context here to try and make it seem like she’s not anti-war or some shit isn’t a great argument.
Oh my lord. I’m sorry, I just thought this particular smear was dead, but no. Ok so, first of all, she has a 100% pro-gay voting record since she was elected to Congress in 2012. That’s before even people like Hillary Clinton came out for gay marriage. Would you say she is homophobic today? Obama came out for gay marriage that same year. Do you think he’s homophobic today? Tulsi has also issued multiple personal apologies to the lgbtq community for her past statements. On top of this, Tulsi has later clarified that the article kind of misquoted her on her “personal views haven’t changed” thing. She was saying that her personal views on abortion hadn’t changed, not that her personal views on gay marriage hadn’t changed. She also has a 100% pro-choice voting record btw. Plus, pretty much every politician was, if not openly anti-gay, didn’t support gay marriage at the time she was homophobic. Does that mean almost every politician that was around in the early 2000s are homophobic?
Ok Modi. First of all, Obama was close buddies with Modi. Many publications jokingly called it a bromance. I have never heard anyone criticize Obama for this. In fact, a lot of democratic part officials have met with Modi. It’s not some fringe thing. Plus, Tulsi has said she’s mainly trying to get the US and India to have good relations. As India is the world’s largest democracy, I fail to see how that’s a bad thing, even if Modi is backwards on some issues.
I don’t know which point in the post is the most egregiously wrong, but this is in the running. She met with Assad to promote peace with Syria, which is one of our most blatantly counter-productive regime change wars we’re doing. Plus, Nancy Pelosi also met with Assad. Is she an Assad apologist? Also, I thought you said she wasn’t anti-interventionist. Meeting with leaders like Modi and Assad seems like a good way to promote peace, is it not? Tulsi has also called Assad a “brutal dictator” so it seems like maybe she doesn’t like him. One more note here, in the lead up to the Iraq war, people who weren’t in favor were called “Saddam apologists”. I think, at least most of us here, can agree the Iraq war is awful. Maybe calling someone an apologist for promoting peace isnt a good way to stop US intervention and imperialism which, I hope at least, we all want.
The first debates are June 26/27 so about a month away. I agree, I’m also excited for those.
Just to clarify on my position on Tulsi, to be blunt, I don’t think she’s going to win. I do think the debates will help her numbers, but at the end of the day, even though I support her, I don’t think she can win quite yet. To be fair, I could also say that about every candidate running except for like three that I think have a chance. Imo, her candidacy is more to bring important issues to the forefront like anti-interventionism and fighting for Julian Assange for instance. Also, to hopefully set up another run in a later election where she could possibly win, as well as hopefully get a spot in the administration of whichever democrat wins, hopefully Bernie. However, I don’t think she’s a “joke candidate” or whatever and she’s bringing some issues to the forefront that people need to talk about.
